Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Jedi are Jokes - Episode II

For today's installment of Stupid Science Fiction, I'm going to examine the primary weapon of Jedi in the Star Wars universe: the lightsaber.

From the official Star Wars pages:

The lightsaber is the weapon of a Jedi, an elegant armament of a more civilized time. In comparison, blasters are crude, inaccurate and loud affairs. To carry a lightsaber is an example of incredible skill and confidence, dexterity and attunement to the Force.

To that I say, "Rubbish and balderdash!"

To George's credit, he did create something rather innovative that proved to be a central prop to his stories, but what it gains in romantic adventure it loses in any kind of real credibility even in a fantasy setting.

OK, so you've got this sword thingy, that's about 3 feet of pure energy that can cut through anything except another lightsaber (convenient if you want to write stories about futuristic sword battles). Disregarding the science, it's a neat idea, but for other than flashy sword battles on a movie set they would prove to be useless.

If there's anything at all that human history has taught us it's that the best way to hurt your opponent is from far away where he can't hurt you. It didn't take early man very long to realize it was more effective to use a long stick over his bare fists. Spears could keep your opponent at a distance or could even be thrown at your enemy or prey. The advent of the bow and arrow proved that one could attack your enemy from a great distance. The invention of gunpowder changed war forever such that hand to hand combat is a last act of desperation. The U.S. Marines consider marksmanship the best skill a soldier can have in spite of their rigorous physical training. Fast forward to the "future" and we now have beam weapons that shoot enormous bolts of energy from extreme ranges. So why would a Jedi choose a weapon that limits his ability to attack within a cone of 3 ft. past his reach? And why just 3 ft.? Really, does that seem at all practical? In the above quote, they imply that blasters are crude and inaccurate, but I would imagine that any blaster that shoots a beam of energy unaffected by gravity, wind, or other environmental factors would be very accurate and deadly even at very long ranges. Samurai swords are elegant, but I'd still take a rusted .38 special over a sword any day.

"But Jedi have Force powers that can block blasters!", you say. So-freaking-what. While it's marvelous that a Jedi can perform such a feat, unless he can close the distance to his opponent quickly, he's a sitting duck. Even as the movies show, a Jedi can't block every single shot coming his way every time and eventually he'll be the casualty that proves the statistic that Jedi only block 99.5% of blaster attacks. A Jedi's only option is to flee or to attack his opponent to take away the advantage of range. The scene in Episode III where Jedi are mowed down by laser-spewing robots is a prime example. The Jedi might have a decent chance in a one-on-one situation at close range, but give his opponent some distance and a fast firing weapon and the Jedi is toast. So why don't Jedi use guns or blasters? That's arrogantly stupid.

But supposing that Jedi have these superhuman reflexes that seem clairvoyant such that they can block high speed projectiles without blinking. What does that say about lightsaber battles? When two Jedi face each other, it must be like fighting in slow motion. If you've got the skills to dodge lasers, how easy is it to defend against a slow moving lightsaber? It almost seems ridiculous that Jedi could ever defeat each other at all. In the movies, some of these fights last for 10 to 15 minutes using dramatic swordplay. It really makes me think that Jedi are stupid because they're not really trying to hit each other, because they move like molasses compared to their ability to block fast-moving projectiles.

Which leads me to the topic of the swordplay itself. The movies borrow heavily from traditional swordplay styles such as kendo. The problem with this is that lightsabers are pure energy and will cut through anything, and since they are just energy would weigh no more than the handle/hilt part of the sword. Yet Jedi are seen swinging them like they were broadswords or samurai swords. Which is stupid because if you have a weapon of pure energy it doesn't require a forceful blow to injure your opponent or severe a limb. No, you simply have to touch him with any part of the blade and you instantly wound and cripple him. All the wild slashing you see is nonsense when your only goal should be to simply touch your opponent with the blade, similar to fencing. Using traditional swordplay would get you killed in a hurry because you're misapplying the best advantage of the lightsaber. I would imagine that if lightsabers were real, the fighting style would be such that the opponents would fence so quickly that most confrontations would be resolved in mere seconds. It would only take one subtle move past your opponents defenses to kill him rather quickly. To fight ad-nauseum blocking blow after blow when a single flip of the wrist would end the battle - well, that's just stupid science fiction.

For fun, I'm including a link to an article from a swordplay expert who was asked for input on how to improve lightsaber battles in fan movies. He had many of the same criticisms I did, and explains it much better. Definitely worth a read before you flame me about criticising lightsabers in Star Wars.

Lightsabers on TheForce.net

Why Jedi Knights are Jokes - Episode I

OK, I know there's a lot of hate towards George Lucas these days after submitting us to the horror of the prequels (which we all went and saw anyways). I recently watched A New Hope through clearer eyes that peered past the awe and wonder of my memory of seeing it for the first time in 1976 as an impressionable 6 year old. Even George admits to creating a fantasy universe that was based on action movie serials of yesteryear, so in that context some things can be forgiven.

But...if you're going to create a 6-movie (plus books and TV tie-ins) monster of fiction, you should at least try to avoid the pitfalls of stupid science fiction. Yes, Hayden can't act his way out of an invisible box, but even more painful to me now is the premise of the Force and Jedi Knights.

Yeah, you heard me, I'm going to sling mud at the holiest of concepts in Star Wars, that of using the Force as a Jedi. Granted, this is science-FICTION fantasy at it's greatest, but it is also at its lowest in that is painfully incomprehensible to any reasonable criticism. I'm not talking about real science here, I'm talking about being consistent with one's own ideas in a fantasy setting.

For my first attack on the Jedi, let me point out that the Jedi are delightfully stupid in their use of the Force in general. Case in point: powerful Jedi are capable of levitating heavy objects but seem unable to apply this power on themselves. For freak's sake, if you can lift several tons, but can't think to use the Force to make yourself fly, you're pretty stupid. You're telling me that Yoda can lift an X-Wing fighter out of the sucking mud of a swamp, but would rather walk stiffly with a cane than fly his tiny 40 lb. frame any where he likes? That's not just stupid, that's colossally stupid. You can bet that any reasonable padawan who discovers the ability to levitate objects will eventually try to perform the trick on himself. Good ol' George gives us some teasers of this ability now and then, but the idea that Jedi are content to walk and never attempt to fly, even in battle, is downright preposterous!

First Post!

OK, this blog is the result of some serious insomnia, but I'm following the popular advice such that when you can't sleep you should get up and do something. Like blog about nothing really that important. I already have a personal blog, but the ideas flitting through my sleep-deprived brain have convinced me that they need their own special place on the interwebs.

So I got to thinking about science fiction in pop culture and began to think "what if..." when it came to key ideas in these stories. There are lots of things in popular sci-fi movies and books that when closely examined are just silly. And there are lots of blogs and web sites committed to pointing out the scientific fallacies of said ideas, but this is not that kind of a blog. I'm a bit of a nerd, but I'm not keen on explaining why, in great scientific detail, time travel is impossible or the viability of transporters. I'll leave that stuff to the hard-core nerds. What is stuck in my brain at the moment are key ideas in pop sci-fi that don't make sense even when you do suspend some disbelief about the validity of the proposed technology of the future. I'm talking about the things that should be obvious to sci-fi authors when they create some kind of futuristic thingamajig to make their story cool, then put it in the hands of their characters only to use the technowidget in a rather mundane fashion.

Let me give you a brief example of what I'm talking about here. Star Trek: The Next Generation dealt often with the concept of a holodeck on the Enterprise. A holodeck is the ultimate virtual reality environment. Anything you can imagine can be done, and as far as the participant is concerned it is completely real to the point where one could risk personal injury or even death. Now assuming one could create such a wonderfully powerful device, would you really use it in the ways portrayed on the show. Lazy sci-fi writers often used it as a plot device to write a story that didn't involve expensive to produce space battles. Lazier still, they often used it to allow their characters to interact with 20th century periods of "history". Lame. Do you really think anyone use a holodeck to play billiards (several episodes of ST:Voyager contain scenes of billiards on the holodeck) or are people in the future really that unimaginative? Riiiiiight. If you could give people the power to live out any fantasy, you'd have trouble getting them back out into the real world. I can only shudder to think of the absolutely depraved and perverse things people would try knowing it's "not real".

This is what I call Stupid Science Fiction. There are a few ways we can clearly define this term.

a) Imposing a contemporary mindset upon a futuristic technology such that said technology is squandered or misused. A classic example is a flying car. If your car can fly, do you really need a car?

b) Defining a future technology for no other reason than to propel a plot point in a story, and then omitting the idea when it is no longer convenient. ST:TNG was good at this. They'd come up with all sorts of groundbreaking technology to get out of a jam and then later forget about it in other episodes.

c) Defining a future technology while placing artificial limits upon its use. This is done sometimes out of sheer lack of imagination, but sometimes it is done to create a plot point. If you have the ability to communicate in real-time across the reaches of space, will you really have trouble getting audio AND video, as seen in numerous Star Trek episodes? If Luke Skywalker has a hovering land speeder, why do so many of the vehicles have wheels?

These definitions may grow, but this should be enough to get me started. Have fun reading!